|
Good question. "Experimental" would imply some sort of ongoing experiment. In this case, my understanding was that Status Server was implemented back in the 1990s, so the experiment should have either succeeded or failed by now. Status Server (and other Ascend extensions, such as Dynamic Authorization) weren't originally documented as a Proposed Standard due to perceived deficiencies which couldn't be addressed without breaking backward compatibility. So that would seem to leave Informational. > Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:00:48 -0400 > Subject: Re: RADEXT WG Last Call on Status Server document > From: gdweber@gmail.com > To: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com > CC: radiusext@ops.ietf.org > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 2:19 AM, Bernard Aboba<bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> wrote: > > This is an announcement of RADEXT WG last call on the Status Server > > specification, prior to sending this document on to the IESG for publication > > as an Informational RFC. > > Can the chairs clarify the intended track of this doc? The current charter > milestone indicates PS; Informational is mentioned above; experimental is > in the current text's footer. > > > The document is available for inspection here: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server > > > > RADEXT WG last call will last until August 7, 2009. Please send comments to > > the RADEXT WG mailing list using the format described in the RADEXT Issues > > list (http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/). > > > > > > > > -- > to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with > the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. > archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> |